Re: [Nmh-workers] Future directions for nmh

[Conrad Hughes]

Ken> it makes it WORSE; each nmh command starts with a brand-new scan of a
Ken> folder, so messages added or removed between commands work out fine.
Ken> But a FUSE interface would have no idea when an nmh command is starting
Ken> or stopping, so you'd have to do a lot of caching or a new IMAP session
Ken> for each file access.

Arguably this is a problem already: all the time I have to keep in my
head that I must be careful about changing nmh state among my (usual)
four terminal windows: I'm reading one email in one folder, see
something arrive in another folder, look at that in another window, go
back to the first window, decide the original message is irrelevant and
rmm it — except now I'm rmm'ing something else in another folder because
I switched context in the other window.

If we solve that, do we solve your IMAP/FUSE issue too?

Conrad